If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Harry K wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in message ... Ron Wanttaja wrote: It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one. If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943. I never knew that the Wright Flyer was gummint sponsored... Matt Looks like you (and others) missed the little "if" in Ron's post. Harry K No, I didn't miss it and I doubt the others did either. The comparison was time delta of the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a spacecraft to the first private one. If the same timescale was applied to conventional airplanes, you would be comparing the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a conventional airplane to the first private one. Backing 40 years off of 1943 yields 1903, which is NOT when the first GOVERNMENT sponsored airplane flew successfully, so the comparison is completely invalid. Matt |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Harry K wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in message ... Richard Lamb wrote: In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil) to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes, did come back with a much safer vehicle. Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical equipment... Matt If the Russians had just informed us of their loss due to the same problem earlier it may not have happened. That's the lamest excuse I've heard lately. If we hadn't made a stupid design decision it wouldn't have happened. Who knows, maybe we were copying the Russians. Matt |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
(David Munday)
snip One additional factor which bears on the shuttlecock concept is that in the hypersonic regime the heating problem gets worse as the leading radius of curvature gets smaller. This is why vehicles come back blunt side forward. snip David Munday - Webpage: http://www.ase.uc.edu/~munday I believe the shuttle comes in pointed end first albeit nose high. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:06:23 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote: No, I didn't miss it and I doubt the others did either. The comparison was time delta of the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a spacecraft to the first private one. If the same timescale was applied to conventional airplanes, you would be comparing the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a conventional airplane to the first private one. Backing 40 years off of 1943 yields 1903, which is NOT when the first GOVERNMENT sponsored airplane flew successfully, so the comparison is completely invalid. The purpose of the comparison was merely to illustrate the time spans involved, not to try to contrast the difference between government vs. private efforts. A less controversial comparison would have been along the lines of "...it was as if no else other than the Wright brothers had been technically capable of building an airplane until 1943." Rutan's achievement is tremendous, but let's not forget, he's standing on the shoulders of giants. SpaceShipOne's success is due to Rutan's brilliant combining of today's cutting-edge technology. He probably has more computing power on his desktop than NASA had in 1960. There wasn't any wind-tunnel testing done on SpaceShipOne; it was all done on a computer. Yet, barely ten years ago, the first flight of an improved launch vehicle failed because the aerodynamic models used weren't accurate enough. That company trusted the computer model and didn't do any wind tunnel testing. The launch vehicle and satellite end up in the drink. Oops. Burt Rutan was fully aware of this instance...after all, his company built part of that rocket's structure (which was in *no* way involved in the failure). Yet, in ten short years, modeling capabilities have improved to the point where he felt confident in risking a manned flight on computational data only. Rutan did one heck of a job, but some folks in this newsgroup have used it as an excuse to sneer at the people who developed some of the technologies that made it possible. If suborbital space flight was so doggone easy, the first private space launch would have been four years after the X-15, not forty. Ron Wanttaja |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Anyway, you do have it backwards...orbital velocity decreases with circular orbit altitude. ~25,200 FPS at 200 nm, ~10,100 FPS at geosynchronous altitude (~19320 NM). You're right about the potential energy, though. Dropping from geosynchronous altitude to ground level, you'll hit the atmosphere at over 23,000 miles per hour. And if you're an old-timer like BOb, you'll have the turn-signal flashing the entire way.... Ron Wanttaja So? To catch up with the guy in front of you, you first slow down? |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
By the way, NASA has "Astronauts," Russia has "Cosmonauts." We need a name for the ordinary folks who fly on SpaceShipOne: I hereby suggest "Commonauts" for those lucky SOBs who get to ride Burt's space bird. Can't they be "Space"men? er. Spacepeople, what was I thinking... G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spaceship 1 hits 212,000 feet!!!!!! | BlakeleyTB | Home Built | 10 | May 20th 04 10:12 PM |